Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system

Earthquake Spectra

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 343-386

  Zhang, Yuyi ^a   Conte, Joel P ^b   Yang, Zhaohui ^c   Elgamal, Ahmed ^b   Bielak, Jacobo ^d   Acero, Gabriel ^e  

^a ANATECH CORP   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^c URS CORPORATION   (United States)

^d CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Houghton and Partners   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; EARTHQUAKES; NONLINEAR ANALYSIS; SOILS;

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE; EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE ANALYSIS; INELASTIC DEFORMATION; LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS; NONLINEAR CONSTITUTIVE MODEL; NONLINEAR EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE ANALYSIS; SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTIONS; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARES;

SOIL LIQUEFACTION;

BRIDGE; CYCLIC LOADING; DEFORMATION; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; FOUNDATION; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 49049097983     PISSN: 87552930     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1193/1.2923925     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Acero, G., 2005. Seismic Response of Columns with Unconfined Lap-Splices, M.S. thesis, University of California at San Diego, CA.
2. Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S., 1992. VELACS: Verification of liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program, soil data report, Project No. 90-0562, The Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, California.
3. Ayala, G. A., and Aranda, G. R., 1977. Boundary conditions in soil amplification studies, in Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, New Dehli, India.
4. Bielak, J., 1978. Dynamic response of nonlinear building-foundation systems, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6, 17-30.
5. Caltrans, 2000. Memorandum, Humboldt Bay Middle Channel Bridge, File 01-Hum-255-0.7, Engineering Service Center, Division of Structural Foundation -MS 5, California Department of Transportation.
6. Caltrans, 2002. Humboldt Bay bridges seismic substructure retrofit, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/humbaybridges, November 29, 2005.
7. Ciampoli, M., and Pinto, P., 1995. Effects of soil-structure interaction on inelastic seismic response of bridge piers, J. Struct. Eng. 121, 806-814.
8. Clough, R., and Penzien, J., 2003. Dynamics of Structures, 2nd edition, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
9. Cornell, C. A., and Krawinkler, H., 2000. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment, PEER Center News, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 2000.
10. Dendrou, B., Werner, S., and Toridis, T., 1985. Three-dimensional response of a concrete bridge system to traveling seismic waves, Comput. Struct. 20, 593-603.
11. Dobry, R., Taboada, V., and Liu, L., 1995. Centrifuge modeling of liquefaction effects during earthquakes, Keynote Lecture, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (IS-Tokyo), Ishihara, K., (editor), vol. 3, Balkema, Netherlands, 1291-1324.
12. Dominguez, N. D., and Soler, P. A., 1999. GID User Manual, International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Barcelona, Spain.
13. Duncan, J., Horz, R., and Yang, T., 1989. Shear strength correlations for geotechnical engineering, Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech.
14. Elgamal, A., Lai, T., Yang, Z., and He, L., 2001. Dynamic soil properties, seismic downhole arrays and applications in practice (CD-ROM), State-of-the-art paper, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, S. Prakash (editor), San Diego, California, March 26-31.
15. Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Parra, E., and Ragheb, A., 2003. Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils, Int. J. Plast. 19, 883-905.
16. Eyre, R., and Tilly, G. P., 1977. Damping measurements on steel and composite bridges, in Symposium on Dynamic Behavior of Bridges, Supplementary Report 275, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
17. Geomatrix Consultants, 1994. Seismic ground motion study for Humboldt Bay bridges on Route 225, Humboldt County, California, Contract No. 59N772. Report prepared for Caltrans Division of Structures.
18. Goel, R. K., 1997. Earthquake characteristics of bridges with integral abutments, J. Struct. Eng. 123, 1435-1443.
19. Goel, R. K., and Chopra, A. K., 1997. Evaluation of bridge abutment capacity and stiffness during earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 13, 1-21.
20. Idriss, I. M., 1990. Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes, in Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, J. M. Duncan (editor), vol. 2, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, British Columbia, 273-289.
21. Idriss, I. M., and Sun, J. I., 1993. User's Manual for SHAKE91: A computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits. Center for geotechnical modeling, University of California, Davis, California.
22. Jeremic, B., Kunnath, S., and Xiong, F., 2004. Influence of soil-foundation-structure interaction on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct, Eng. Struct. 263, 391-402.
23. Joyner, W. B., 1975. Method for calculating nonlinear seismic response in 2-dimensions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65, 1337-1357.
24. Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Pestana, J., Riemer, M., and Seed, R., 2000. Cyclic simple shear testing of Nevada sand for PEER Center project 2051999, Research Report No. UCB/GT/00-02, University of California at Berkeley, California.
25. Kappos, A. J., Manolis, G. D., and Moschonas, I. F., 2002. Seismic assessment and design of R/C bridges with irregular configuration, including SSI effects, Eng. Struct. 24, 1337-1348.
26. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., 1971. Flexural members with confined concrete, J. Struct. Div. 97, 1969-1990.
27. Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 653 pp.
28. Liu, A., Stewart, J., Abrahamson, N., and Moriwaki, Y., 2001. Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analysis, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127, 1017-1026.
29. Luco, J. E., and Hadjian, A. H., 1974. Two-dimensional approximations to the three-dimensional soil-structure interaction problem, Nucl. Eng. Des. 31, 195-203.
30. Lysmer, J., and Kuhlemeyer, R. L., 1969. Finite dynamic model for infinite media, J. Engrg. Mech. Div. 95, 859-877.
31. McCallen, D. B., and Romstad, K. M., 1994. Analysis of a skewed short-span, box-girder overpass, Earthquake Spectra 10, 729-755.
32. McKenna, F., and Fenves, G. L., 2001. The OpenSees command language manual, version 1.2, http://opensees.berkeley.edu, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
33. Meyerhof, G. G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils, J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div. 82(SM1), 1-19.
34. Mitchell, J., and Katti, R., 1981. Soil improvement state-of-the-art report, General Reports, in Proceedings of 10th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 4, Stockholm, 264-320.
35. Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G., 2000. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J. Earthquake Eng. 4, 277-301.
36. Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A., and Gazetas, G., 1997. Soil-pile-bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26, 337-359.
37. Porter, K. A., 2003. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, California, July 6-9.
38. Prevost, J. H., 1985. A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 4, 9-17.
39. Seed, H. B., Ugas, C., and Lysmer, J., 1976. Site-dependent spectra for earthquake-resistant design, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 66, 221-243.
40. Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I. M., and Tokimatsu, K., 1984. Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils, Report UCB/EERC-84/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
41. Seed, R., Cetin, K., Moss, R., Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Pestana, J., Riemer, M., Sancio, R., Bray, J., Kayen, R., and Faris, A., 2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework, Keynote Presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, CA.
42. Silva, P. F., and Seible, F., 2001. Seismic performance evaluation of CISS piles, ACI Struct. J. 98, 36-49.
43. Silva, W., 2003. Soil response to earthquake ground motion, Research Project RP2556-07 Final Report, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Walnut Creek, CA.
44. Somerville, P., and Collins, N., 2002. Ground motion time histories for the Humboldt Bay Bridge, Report of the PEER Performance Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology Test-bed Program, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
45. Spacone, E., Filippou, C., and Taucer, F. F., 1996. Fibre beam-column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: Part I. Formulation, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 25, 711-725.
46. Spyrakos, C., 1992. Seismic behavior of bridge piers including soil-structure interaction, Comput. Struct. 43, 373-384.
47. Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J., and Christiano, P., 1991. Three-dimensional nonlinear study of piles, J. Geotech. Engrg. 117, 429-447.
48. Werner, S. D., Beck, J. L., and Levine, M. B., 1987. Seismic refraction evaluation of Meloland road overpass using the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake records, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 15, 249-274.
49. Werner, S. D., Beck, J. L., and Nisar, A., 1990. Dynamic tests and seismic excitation of a bridge structure, Proceedings of 4th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1, 1037-1046.
50. Werner, S. D., Crouse, D. B., Katafygiotis, L. S., and Beck, J. L., 1994. Use of strong motion records for model evaluation and seismic analysis of a bridge structure, in Proceedings of the 5th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, 511-520.
51. Wilson, J. C., and Tan, B. S., 1990a. Bridge abutments: formulation of simple model for earthquake response analysis, J. Eng. Mech. 116, 1828-1837.
52. Wilson, J. C., and Tan, B. S., 1990b. Bridge abutments: assessing their influence on earthquake response of Meloland road overpass, J Eng. Mech. 116, 1838-1856.
53. Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E., 2003. Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129, 1119-1127.
54. Yang, Z., Lu, J., and Elgamal, A., 2005. OpenSees geotechnical capabilities developed at U.C. San Diego. User Manual, http:// cyclic.ucsd.edu/opensees, November 29.
55. Youd, T. et al., 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, J Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127, 817-833.
56. Zhang, J., and Makris, N., 2002. Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil-structure interaction, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31, 1967-1991.
57. Zhang, Y., Yang, Z., Bielak, J., Conte, J. P., and Elgamal, A., 2003. Treatment of seismic input and boundary conditions in nonlinear seismic analysis of a bridge ground system, in Proceedings of the 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of Washington, Seattle, July 16-18.
58. Zhang, Y., 2006. Probabilistic Structural Seismic Performance Assessment Methodology and Application to an Actual Bridge-Foundation-Ground System, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at San Diego, CA.